NY Times: "At Colleges, Women Are Leaving Men in the Dust"

Parents Forum
1

<p>Long article for tomorrow's NY Times (but already up online).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?ei=5094&en=9e7c68c097d2ec04&hp=&ex=1152417600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?ei=5094&en=9e7c68c097d2ec04&hp=&ex=1152417600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Much of the same old stuff, but some interesting stats, including:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Women now make up 58 percent of those enrolled in two- and four-year colleges and are, over all, the majority in graduate schools and professional schools too.</p></li>
<li><p>At Brown University, men made up not quite 40 percent of this year's applicants, but 47 percent of those admitted.</p></li>
<li><p>At Harvard, 55 percent of the women graduated with honors this spring, compared with barely half the men. </p></li>
<li><p>The gender differences are not uniform. In the highest-income families, men 24 and under attend college as much as, or slightly more than, their sisters.</p></li>
<li><p>In a survey of 90,000 students at 530 institutions, men were significantly more likely than women to say they spent at least 11 hours a week relaxing or socializing, while women were more likely to say they spent at least that much time preparing for class. More men also said they frequently came to class unprepared.</p></li>
<li><p>Using data from U.C.L.A.'s Higher Education Research Institute annual studies, Professor Linda Sax found that men were more likely than women to skip classes, not complete their homework and not turn it in on time.</p></li>
</ul>

2

<p>yes we men suck !!</p>

3

<p>Wow, I guess D1 was telling the truth when she said that at crunch time, she lives in the library! ;)</p>

4

<p>my daughter said she didn't even go back to her room to sleep or shower during finals- eww
Students take it upon themselves to squirt each other with Febreze</p>

5

<p>Hmm, doesn't this bother the diversity crowd? And is AA for men really appropriate given the fact that men still earn more than women? Interesting to hear the reaction to this. Men are hardly a group that has suffered historically from discrimination.</p>

6

<p>Maybe some men are slackers because they know that women STILL only make 70% of what men make?</p>

<p>I have to say that when I look at places like MIT where men are still 60% of the student population, and where starting salaries are enormous, and compare that with places like Vassar where women are 60% of the student population, I fail to see what the men are whining about.</p>

7

<p>Girls write more legibly. :)</p>

8

<p>who writes?
My kids have been keyboarding since 3rd grade. :)</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
* The gender differences are not uniform. In the highest-income families, men 24 and under attend college as much as, or slightly more than, their sisters.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is interesting, and probably explains a lot. Low income males probably feel more pressure to start working right away. College is still a luxury for many.</p>

10

<p>Underperforming by male students is not really an educational issue, is it? (see my contribution to the boys crisis thread), even though the results are felt in the realm of education.
Various posters have called for a federal effort to combat the boys crisis which also seems to be a male college students crisis (do we still call them boys when they are in college?)
So my suggestion is to have vast new, costly federal program to discover a slacker pill. Ingested at the appropriate times, it will make male students more willing to hit the books and come prepared for class. Given the gender composition of Congress and its current willingness to bust the budget, I predict easy passage. Once the slacker pill has been invented, it will be covered by iinsurance, like Viagra (which, I take it , is also designed to combat slacking but at the other end of the life cycle).</p>

11

<p>Here's another perspective on the "$.76 on the dollar" question. As a sahm, I remember when I earned the same amount, or more, than my husband. But I chose to stay home to raise kids. Should I expect to re-enter the work force at a wage comparable to his after almost 30 years of work? It would be nice, but I don't see it happening. Women I know, including a sister who works for the same company I worked for, and who have remained in the work force seem to earn as much as men in comparable jobs. I just like to get objective data, so here's another look.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050321/21john.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050321/21john.htm&lt;/a>

[quote]
The Census Bureau did find that women earned 76 cents for every dollar paid to a male (now up to 80 cents on the dollar), but that was a raw number, not adjusted for comparable jobs and responsibility. A new book, Why Men Earn More by Warren Farrell, goes further, examining a broad array of wage statistics. His conclusion: When reasonable adjustments are made, women earn just as much as men, and sometimes more....
Some of Farrell's findings: Women are 15 times as likely as men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40. Never-married, college-educated males who work full time make only 85 percent of what comparable women earn. Female pay exceeds male pay in more than 80 different fields, 39 of them large fields that offer good jobs, like financial analyst, engineering manager, sales engineer, statistician, surveying and mapping technicians, agricultural and food scientists, and aerospace engineer. A female investment banker's starting salary is 116 percent of a male's. Part-time female workers make $1.10 for every $1 earned by part-time males...
Surprisingly, Farrell argues that comparable males and females have been earning similar salaries for decades, though the press has yet to notice. As long ago as the early 1980s, he writes, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. In 1969, data from the American Council on Education showed that female professors who had never been married and had never published earned 145 percent of their male counterparts' pay. Even during the 1950s, Farrell says, the gender pay gap for all never-married workers was less than 2 percent while never-married white women between 45 and 54 earned 106 percent of what their white male counterparts made.

[/quote]
I believe that lifestyle choices determine the wage gap mentioned in the media. The media promotes the idea of unequal wages becauses it grabs people's attention. When people use this argument to make the case that boys in this country don't need any help, it seems disingenuous to me.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
Hmm, doesn't this bother the diversity crowd?

[/quote]
Well, there is a fair amount of AA going on for white males at the most selective schools - isn't that wild! And I thought that AA was ok because at least by D would benefit. There is a thread herein from the ?Kenyon? college dean of admissions about just this - it is worst at selective LACs. If a school gets to 60% women fewer girls and boys apply there.</p>

13

<p>LOL, Marite!!! I love it. :) Especially coming from you - the high-achieving mother of two bright, bright sons. </p>

<p>So let me get this straight. When whites out-perform blacks, it's because of racial bias, bad educational opportunities, or inherent differences. (Not advocating for any of those, just saying those theories are out there.) When men outperform women, it's because of the "choices" we make. When we differentially admit women or minorities, it's affirmative action and we're just not as qualified (see the thread on the engineering board). When there aren't as many women in engineering because we haven't magically erased every gender barrier, it's because our little brains just can't handle those big numbers...</p>

<p>...but when men underperform, it's a crisis. If we differentially admit men through AA, it's making up for lack of educational opportunities because of some very nebulous discrimination, even though they underperform in college as well. (Men's SAT scores overpredict their grades; women's SAT scores underpredict their grades. So even with the higher SATs, men still need help.) </p>

<p>Anyone want to join me in a synchronized eye-roll?</p>

<p>Maybe Larry Summers is right. MAYBE IT'S BIOLOGY... but it's not men who are better. ;) (So sorry, couldn't resist.)</p>

14

<p>Only a few decades ago so many women argued, persuasively I thought at the time, that all of society was diminished by the inequities facing women - and that all of society should participate in the solutions to redress the problems facing women. Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot; while once women spoke from the perspective of the public good, now they have hardened their hearts, making lame and silly excuses to preserve the status quo. Too bad.</p>

15

<p>Not all feminists are making those excuses old guy. As dmd pointed out, guys know that they have the distinct advantage outside of academia. Why sweat when you don't have to? Also, I'm not sure that the old maxim of "everybody EXACTLY equal" is useful. Don't we have a more nuanced view of diversity now?</p>

<p>I agree with marite, there is no academic fix to this problem. Leave the boys alone. Give them space to learn. Don't try to turn them into female learners. That ain't happening. </p>

<p>From what I've seen raising two boys, guy mature and focus at a later age. Nothing short of a pill is going to change that. Ritalin is a version of the pill marite is imagining, IMO. </p>

<p>But when they catch up in maturity, when their testoserone kicks in at age 20 and the boys begin to charge for the gates, many ladies still find it hard to compete on that level field, outside the realm of a structured, authority centered environment.</p>

16

<p>Maybe getting men to college later is the solution. Some societies achieve this by mandating two years' military service for men (South Korea for example).</p>

17

<p>It's amazing how much feminism there is in this thread.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I have to say that when I look at places like MIT where men are still 60% of the student population, and where starting salaries are enormous, and compare that with places like Vassar where women are 60% of the student population, I fail to see what the men are whining about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I could be wrong, but it sounds like you're under the impression that there is some sort of sexism taking place in MIT admissions in favor of men. While it's true that there are more men making up the student body at MIT, it's only because there are so few women who choose to apply to MIT, presumably mainly because of a lack of interest in the primary fields of study there.</p>

<p>In fact, in 2005, only 12% of all men who applied to MIT were admitted. In stark contrast, a whopping 27% of all women who applied were admitted.</p>

<p>Also, where did you see men whining about this?</p>

18

<br>


<br>

<p>Gee, barely half the men graduated with honors... Sounds like grade inflation is alive and well. :)</p>

19

<p>
[quote]
Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot; while once women spoke from the perspective of the public good, now they have hardened their hearts, making lame and silly excuses to preserve the status quo. Too bad.

[/quote]

Not a good analogy. Before, women were outright banned from many elite colleges or strongly discouraged from being anything save a teacher, nurse, or secretary. Men still have EVERY option open to them. Frankly, if women opened the doors but didn't walk through, I would have a hard time feeling sympathetic. Men have had the doors open forever and still slack. One of the profs quoted in the NYT article said that the men are in the same place they were 30 years ago, but the women have upped the level of play. </p>

<p>As for MIT... well, I was one of the women rejected, me with my 1550 SAT and top grades. My ex-boyfriend, with worse stats and ECs, was admitted the following year. Yes, you can look at acceptance rates, but, fact is, the women who apply are more qualified. Few women apply because they "might" get in - most of them are absolute superstars. </p>

<p>Compare the actual numbers - I read somewhere that the women who enroll in MIT have as good stats as the men. More qualified pool - why can't they take more? The women's group just doesn't have the extra people who are at the bottom, but are well-matched at the middle & top.</p>

20

<p>I don't think any kind of conclusion can be drawn from the breakdown of honors awarded this year at Harvard.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.08/42-degrees.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.08/42-degrees.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>